Jharkhand High Court
Shakti Kumar Agarwal vs Uco Bank Through Its ... on 20 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C). No.5387 of 2018
----
Shakti Kumar Agarwal .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. UCO Bank through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, having its
Head Office at Kolkata.
2. Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Sainik Market, Main
Road, P.O, G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi
3. Authorised Officer-cum-Chief Manager, UCO Bank having its Zonal
Office at Sainik Market, Main Road, District Ranchi.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
5. Circle Officer, Ormanjhi, Ranchi. .... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anish Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Akhouri, S.C (Mines)-I
For the Respondent-Bank : Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate
----
09/Dated: 20th July, 2023
1. The present writ petition relates to R.S Plot No. 399, 449, Sub Plot
No.399, 449/2, Khata No.36 measuring area of six decimals situated at
Mauza-Irba, Thana- Ormanjhi, District-Ranchi.
2. It appears that the writ petitioner was the auction purchaser of the said
land and it has been transferred by the UCO Bank vide registered deed
No.2635/2349/2006 dated 18.02.2006 standing in the name of Md. Imran.
3. It further appears that one Md. Imran has taken loan from the
respondent-Bank to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- and in response of the same, he
has mortgaged the aforesaid landed property. Since he could not repay the
amount and accordingly the land, in question, has been auctioned as per the
law.
4. The writ petitioner has participated in the auction process and being
successful as highest bidder, the auction culminated in his favour.
Accordingly, after taking the entire money the land, in question, has been
transferred by the respondent-Bank.
5. The twist is now, in the meantime, a fraud has been committed by the
borrower namely, Md. Imran with the respondent-Bank as he has sold the
property to one Anjum Ara vide registered sale deed No.9067/2010 and she
has sold the property vide sale deed No.368/2013 to Md. Shahid Parvez and
he got his name mutated in the revenue records vide Mutation Case
No.463R27/2013-14.
6. The said land again has been sold by Md. Shahid Parvez to Jawed
Hussain vide registered sale deed No.7090/2017 and the said Javed Hussain
got his name mutated in the revenue record vide Mutation Case
No.1691R27/2017-18. Thus, the Bank has auctioned the disputed property
and the dispute has been transferred to the auction purchaser which is not
permissible in law. A fraud committed upon the Bank cannot be transferred
to an innocent person.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments
passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amarnath Pandey vrs.
The Bank of Baroda & Others in [W.P.C No.5360 of 2021] vide order
dated 04.05.2023 and in the case of UK Mehanical Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,
Jamshedpur through its Director, Prabhakar Kumar Singh vrs. The Zonal
Manager, Corporation Bank, & Others in [W.P.C No.5561 of 2019] vide
order dated 01.10.2020.
8. On above factual background and the judgments, the arguments has
been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is
an innocent auction purchaser and he cannot be punished for participating in
the auction purchase process which was otherwise in accordance with law.
Fraud has been committed upon the Bank and the Bank has to suffer and as
such, petitioner is entitled to receive the amount with interest which has been
deposited by him for the purchase of the property and the cost paid for the
registration.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has submitted that the
property, in question, has been mortgaged by the borrower. Subsequently, a
fraud has been committed by the borrower and the Bank has sold the
property in accordance with law.
10. Learned counsel for the State has given the details of the transfer by
filing counter affidavit. The property, in question, has been transferred and
mutated.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the
records, it is evident that a fraud has been committed by the borrower with
regard to the property. The land, in question, has been sold to different
persons and several transaction has been taken place. Thus, the Bank is no
longer holder of claim of recovery through the said land. Thus, the
auction held by the Bank is not in accordance with law and accordingly, it is
hereby set aside.
12. The Bank is directed to return the amount to the auction purchaser
with 6% simple interest from the date of receiving of the amount till the date
of payment and also to pay the registration fee cost which has been paid by
the auction purchase i.e., the present writ petitioner.
13. The petitioner is directed to return the sale deed to the Bank and also
give details regarding the expenditures within a month from today and the
Bank is directed to return the auction amount as well as expenditures etc.,
made by the petitioner within three months.
14. The Bank is at liberty to take appropriate action against the borrowers
in accordance with law and also at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum
for cancellation of the sale deed, which has been executed in favour of the
auction purchaser.
15. With the above observation and directions, the present writ petition is
hereby, disposed of.
16. In view of the disposal of the present writ petition, pending
interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/-
